Sunday, August 3, 2003

Jerry
I’m just wearing my clothes. I bought them at the department store. I bought these because they are pants and they are brown corduroy. And I bought this because it is a yellow shirt.

Future Jerry
Well, you should have put more thought into it.

Jerry
Leave me alone.

Future Jerry
It’s your fault my life’s a mess.

Jerry
It’s your fault.

Future Jerry
You’re the me who’s fault it is.

Jerry
Don’t blame me for you’re past mistakes.

Future Jerry
Why not? You’re the one who’s making them. It’s your fault I turned out this way. I’m not the same as you anymore Jerry. Look at me. Do I look the same as you? Do I act like you do? You are who I was, and it’s your fault I turned into this.

Jerry
You hate yourself.

Future Jerry
If by myself you mean you then you’re right. I dislike the man I’ve become, but the only one I hate is you.

Jerry
So what.

Future Jerry.
Fuck you, kid. You know what kills me the most about it all? That none of what I’m saying to you even matters.

Jerry
Leave me alone.

Future Jerry
You’ll be alone soon enough, kid. When you get to be me, you’ll be alone all of the time, and you’ll wish you weren’t. You’ll wish that some future incarnation of yourself would manifest himself before you, and give you a little advice. Maybe point out some mistakes you can avoid. You’ll see.

Old man enters

Old Man
Jerry. Jerry.

Future Jerry
Jerry?

Jerry
Oh, Jesus.

Old Man
Jerrys, it’s you!

Future Jerry
Jerry! You came! Now I remember, yes! How could I have forgotten? You always came, right after I came! Oh why didn’t I listen to myself? I remember, you made so much more sense to me that I did. I remember now, yes. I found myself to be so annoying, pinning all my mistakes on me, but then you came and, yes, you, oh wait, I’m, I’m confused now.

Old Man
Shut up, Jerry.

Future Jerry
Oh, sorry. What is it? What knowledge have you come to bestow on me?

Old Man
I’m not here for you, you whining jack off. I’m here for the kid.

Future Jerry
Oh, I-

Jerry
Oh, Jesus, leave me out of this. He obviously wants to talk to you old man, I sure as hell don’t.

Old Man
I think you will, kid.

Jerry
I doubt it. You smell really bad like shit.

Future Jerry
Don’t talk to him like that.

Old Man
Shut up.

Jerry
I’m leaving. You two suck.

Future Jerry
Fine, fine, go! My past is over, there is obviously nothing I can do about it, so just go. My future though, yes, my future is still wide open, yes, even I have the power to change that, even I can work on that. If only, if only I had some pointers, a few tips, things to look out for, yes, then I’d have a shot, I’d have a real shot. Yes, how ‘bout it old man, some pointers, you’ve got the scoop. Clue me in, Jerry! Let me see!

Old Man
Oh, just forget about him for a minute will you? He’s just confused is all. He’ll work through it. He’s just living in the past, his mind is all caught up on past events. He thinks by giving you some advice, his life will work out for the better. But we know that it won’t, don’t we. We have a better understanding of time than all that don’t we.
You see Jerry, no matter what he says to you, obviously won’t make any difference because there he is, and his life is a mess. But he always comes back doesn’t he. You’ll see. You’ll see it when you’re him. You’ll forget all about what I’m telling you today, and you’ll get it in your head that you can do what he couldn’t, that you’ll actually make a change.
You’ll see, you’ll see how badly you want me to come back and see you too. You’ll remember that I came back once, and how you liked me a little bit, more than him at least, and you wish that I would come back again, and you’ll think about how I said all of this to you, and that it obviously didn’t make any difference to you before, so why should it now? You see, Jerry, even though you’ll know better, you’ll still wish things could change. And that is a little bit ridiculous.
You’ll see when you are him, you’ll have a much better understanding of the space/time continuum by then, and you’ll know just how ridiculous a wish like that actually is. But sometimes, Jerry, sometimes, no matter how many times a situation doubles over on itself, no matter how many times you experience the very same event, each time you do your perceptions change a little bit, things take a different spin, and very soon you begin to see that you can profit, even in a situation that seems quite set in stone. It’s all in the way you look at things, Jerry. Do you catch my drift?

Jerry
Not really.

Old Man
Don’t worry, Jerry, one day you will. Not that it really matters anyway. Things will just work out, I’m sure of that much.

Jerry
Alright, well, thanks for all that. You are at least a little bit better than that jerk. I hope I can get through being him pretty quick, and get to be you.

Old Man
It’s a sad thing. I would say don’t rush too quick, but I know it’s a stupid thing to say. In fact I remembered that I would say that. I know this whole thing by heart by now, but somehow, its not as though I’m reciting it at all, this dialog is just coming so naturally. It’s strange really. You’ll see what I mean some day. There will be a time when you will actually work to memorize this whole speech, see look over there. There you are, behind that bush, scribbling down every thing I say, taking notes so he can memorize it all. Hello, over there!

Scribbler
(Checks notes) Hello.

Old man
And there you are again, taking notes as well, you’ll notice you look at bit younger then, that’s because you are. Unfortunately half the notes you take that time are eventually destroyed in a small house fire. (Man stops writing) At first you’ll stop taking notes as he did, figuring it is all futile. But then you’ll remember me saying that I was just joking about the fire, so you’ll start again, but then you’ll remember that there was another older younger version of you there, and that he must have come back for something, so you stop again. But really the only reason you’ll come back to take notes a second time will be because you didn’t do a complete job the first time. I don’t know why you do it at all.
(He turns to the two guys) Honestly, fellow, you’re wasting your time. It just comes naturally for me now. Thanks for the effort though. (To Jerry) they won’t leave.

Jerry
They’re still taking notes.

Old Man
Of course they are. (To guys) listen, you tits, Jerry here is saying all his lines correctly, isn’t he? And this is his first time! Don’t worry about it. (The younger one puts down his pad and chooses to watch. The older one scoffs smugly)

Really Old Man
No!

Old Man
Oh brother.

R.O.M
Don’t listen to him, Jerry!

Old Man
Will you shut up? (Sarcastically) Oh, wait. I remember now, of course you won’t! You never do.

R.O.M
One day you’ll see! You’ll wish you’d sided with me!

Old Man
Heard it all before, oldie.
Jerry
Is that me too?

Old Man
Afraid so, kid. Its both of us.

Jerry
Jesus.

R.O.M.
Jerry, listen to me! Forget what this mouse shit is saying, and heed my words. Do what you want. Live your life the way you want to. Don’t let this event rule your life the way it has ours, forget everything they have all said to you. You don’t have to turn out as we did!

Old Man
Yes he does, you insufferable fart gobbler.

R.O.M.
If I were any younger I’d crack your head wide open!

Old Man
If you were any younger, you’d be me, and you’d kick you in your boney old ass. (He kicks R.O.M. in the ass.) Just like that.

R.O.M.2
Halt. (Looks like really old man except he is wearing a super hero costume)

Old Man
Oh yes, that guy.

R.O.M.2
Me!

Old Man
Now please, explain this to me again. I swear, no matter how many times I go through this I can never get this part straight. Who’s this one?

R.O.M.2
I’m him. (Points to R.O.M.)

R.O.M.
He’s us. He’s me, He’s me from a week after now, I think.

R.O.M.2
That’s right. Now leave him alone or I’ll destroy you!
Old Man
Well, honestly, I highly doubt you could do that. But even if you could, I wouldn’t recommend it, because if you destroy me, you will have destroyed yourself.

R.O.M.
That’s a theory we’re willing to test! (The two really old men jump on the old man)

Old Man
I was expecting this!

R.O.Men
So were we!

Note takers
(Holding cam corders) So were we!

Jerry
Oh Jesus, will you fuckers just stop! This is so stupid! And confusing? What the hell can anyone gain from this nonsense? This isn’t enlightening? This can’t possibly enrich my life! It’s just gratuitous and hokey!

R.O.M.2
It’s absurdist!

Jerry
Well whatever it is, its lame and I’m leaving. (To audience) Who’s with me?!

Audience
Wait! You can’t leave!

Jerry
Who are they?

Audience
We’re them, (They point to the actual audience) from the future!

Audience member 1
Listen! Tim! I know this seems stupid and boring now, but believe me, you’re going to need this in two weeks. I can’t get into it, but if you and your date stay, she’ll (makes blowjob sign) later, in the car!

Audience member 2
And Sally! Trust me! Sure this play sucks, but if you leave now you’ll have to go back and spend time with your fat husband!

(Audience exits)
Jerry
Well, if they can handle it, I guess I can. Plus I do want to find out about this old super hero guy.

R.O.M.2
Me!

R.O.M.
Well, it’s quite simple actually, in a few days I awake to find that a radioactive comet has crashed into my living room, giving me modest super powers. That’s how it goes, isn’t it?

R.O.M.2
Basically!

R.O.M.
I don’t know why he’s always shouting.

R.O.M.2
The comet crushed my hearing aid!

R.O.M.
Oh, yes, that’s it.

Old Man
Yes, well that’s just fascinating. Now would you mind leaving us be, Jerry and I were in the middle of something here.

R.O.M.
No, you’ve had your turn. Let me speak to Jerry for a moment.

Old Man
Okay fine. I’m going to get a cup of coffee. But I’ll be back shortly, so no funny stuff.

Jerry
Dude, can you get me a Dunkachino?

Old Man
You buy, I fly?

Jerry
Oh man.

Old Man
Don’t worry about it, my treat.

Jerry
Cool.

R.O.M.2
Tea!

Old Man
Fine. Does anyone else want anything?

Note Taker 2
We’ll split a coke.

Old Man
Okay, anyone else?

Future Jerry
I wouldn’t mind a coffee, light and sweet.

Old Man
Hold on, let me get a pen. (Takes out pen and pad) Now what was it?

All
(Shout out their respective requests)

Old Man
I’m going to need help carrying all this.

R.O.M.
Really old Man 2, why don’t you go with him.

R.O.M.2
Okay!

Old Man
Any of you want to chip in a few bucks as well? All this shit ain’t just for me.

________________________________________

Laws are not fixed in stone.
We, as American Citizens, can improve, direct, and change the way we manage our
country’s affairs.We are allowed,
legally, to make things better.We are
expected to build upon, to improve, and even to nullify the laws written in the
past.By law we are required to amend
our mistakes.

________________________________________

There
have been murmurs of discontent, not unlike the kind of subtle undulations upon
the surface of the sea just before a storm.There are signs that very soon, things may change. Opinions are
shifting, minds progressing, people are beginning to rethink the status quo;
for despite what you may have heard, things are very bad indeed.

The
problems are blatant, though often ignored, for many wonder “just how can we
change an institution that is so inherent to our collective way of life?”No one can argue the task is not a difficult
one.But also, many would agree it is
becoming increasingly important as well.

Look at
the statistics: While the state of Connecticut spends around $9,000 per year on
each of its public school students, it spends almost $27,000 annually on each
of its nearly 20,000 incarcerated inmates.

Tough
figures to justify, especially when one considers that incarceration in
prison-alternative programs costs only around $5,000 per inmate. That is a
savings of about $22,000 per year for only a single prisoner. A widespread
doctrine of employment of such programs just might be the “shot in the arm” our
ailing state budget and justice system need: less spending, greater
rehabilitative results, and consequently, lower rates of recidivism, which
means less people returning to prison; quid pro quo: less money spent housing
future offenders. And so on, and so forth.[1]

The
fiscal status of the DOC is a dire one. Though the state’s population has
remained stable since 1980, and in the same time the crime rate has steadily
decreased, the state’s prison population has increased fivefold.

The
state prison matrix has simply been unable to keep up with the increase; and
though the prison population continues to grow, the money to hire more
Correctional Officers and to build more beds to accommodate the influx has
simply run out.Now inmates are sleeping
on gymnasium floors, and the state’s budget continues to collapse. The dream is
over, as is the post “tough on crime” honeymoon.

But
there are murmurs of change.People are
beginning to look at the laws we have instituted and say “this isn’t working,
we need to try something new.”

We have
brains in our heads; this may be the moment to use them.

The
best hope in correcting this corrections dilemma is to reconsider exactly who
should be sent to prison in the first place. It is no secret that alternate
forms of incarceration mean big savings for the state’s taxpayers, not to
mention a probable “more just” justice system. As the system now stands, it is
costing each of the state’s over 3 million households around $460 per year to
run the DOC; our courts are clogged, prisons overflowing, injustice is rampant.

Recently,
state legislators have begun to question the state’s current practice of what
State Rep. Peter Villano calls “Warehousing human beings.”

One way
some legislators believe can help clean up the justice system morass would be
to grant judges greater flexibility in sentencing, allowing a judge to fashion
a sentence appropriate to a particular offender and offense.

The
mandatory minimum sentencing laws in place in Connecticut and other states have
become notorious tools of injustice and a drain on taxpayers’ wallets.

A
mandatory minimum sentence is a sentence that may not be reduced by a court
under legislative authority. That means that where a judge normally has
discretion as to choose a suitable punishment, taking into account mitigating
factors specific to a certain incident, the judge’s hands become tied.

The
mandatory sentence diminishes the judge’s inherent role, to dole out a sentence
to each individual suspect, befitting of the circumstances surrounding the
crime committed. Under a mandatory minimum sentence the punishment cannot fit
the crime.

Historically,
mandatory minimum sentences are a rarity.It was not until the second half of the last century that mandatory
minimum sentences became common practice.

First
introduced as a response to the rise in drug activity, legislation soon latched
on to mandatory minimums as a way of portraying a “tough” approach to dealing
with crime. By the 21st Century, there were numerous mandatory
minimum sentences on the books for a wide range of crimes.

The
laws themselves have been thoroughly unscientific. The lengths of the mandated
sentences often are not based on any empirical study, but rather are simply
chosen on grounds that they “sound” strict.

People
from all sectors of the criminal justice system have decried mandatory minimum
sentences. As early as 1974, the American Bar Association said in its criminal
justice policy, that it opposes, in principle, legislatively or
administratively imposed mandatory minimum prison sentences. Recently, Supreme
Court Justice Kennedy has publicly decried mandatory minimum sentences. (QUOTE)
An (JUDGE RESIGNS QUOTE)

Chief
Justice William Rehnquist called mandatory minimum sentences a good example of
the law of unintended consequences. In 2002 Supreme Court Justice J. Breyer
stated that mandatory minimums generally deny the judge the legal power to
depart downward, no matter how unusual the special circumstances that call for
leniency… they transfer sentencing power to prosecutors, who can determine
sentences through the charges they decide to bring…they are rarely based upon
empirical study.

Prior
to leaving his final term, Michigan Governor John Engler signed a bill
eliminating mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders. Before this action,
Michigan was regarded as having the strictest drug laws in the nation.

Recently,
many other states including Idaho, Maryland, and New York have begun to rethink
mandatory minimum sentences as well.

Here in
Connecticut, State Legislature passed an act concerning mandatory minimum
sentences. The new act allows judges to deviate from the application of a
mandatory minimum sentence, but only in cases involving first time drug
offenders.

The repeal of mandatory minimum sentencing
policies would not only better serve the taxpayers and the state’s fiscal
situation, but it would create a more “just” justice system.

Legislators need to come up with an
“outside of the box” approach to dealing with the current deficit. And we, as a
society need to take a more proactive approach toward dealing with other
people. Instead of giving up, we should seek to improve our collective
existence.

Punishment should not be handed out in
predetermined increments. As Judge Leon Higginbotham once said: We must
remember we are not widgets or robots, but human beings. Defendants should be
sentenced within the spectrum of what most judges would consider fair and
reasonable.

I’m not saying we should not be tough on
crime, I’m simply saying that the punishment should fit the crime.

Mandatory
minimum sentences completely eliminate a judge’s discretion when choosing an
appropriate punishment for an offender. This curtailing of the courts
traditional sentencing rights greatly undermines the integrity of the justice
system as a whole.

Under a
mandatory minimum sentence, a judge must impose the set sentence without
exception.Any mitigating factors such
as a defendant’s character, history, or specific circumstances that might
otherwise call for a lesser sentence must be ignored.

Because
of this, mandatory minimum sentences are in conflict with the most basic
notions of justice.Under a mandatory minimum
sentence the punishment cannot fit the crime.

Proponents
of the deterrent role of sentencing suggest that if a person is punished for
committing a crime, that person’s punishment will become an example for
others.If one person is punished for a
crime, perhaps others will think twice before also committing crimes.By the same account, the idea of deterrence
follows the theory that the person punished will also be discourage from
committing more crimes in the future.

Those
in favor of mandatory minimum sentences declare that such sentencing provisions
work toward the notions of deterrence.Supporters contend that criminal activity will decline if potential
offenders are concerned they will serve time in prison if they violate the law.

However,
Agencies including the Maryland State Bar Association have asserted that this
school of though is flawed since most potential offenders are completely
unaware of which crimes actually carry mandatory minimum sentences.Also, many crimes are committed on impulse
without much forethought, which further detracts from the intended goal of
deterrence.

A
recent bill presented before the Idaho State Legislature states that mandatory
minimum sentencing, originally intended to create more consistency in
sentencing and reduce sentencing disparity, has severely limited the discretion
of the courts, and in doing so force judges to impose punishment inappropriate
to the offense or to the circumstances of the offender.

Mandatory
minimum sentences fail to create uniformity in sentencing because they force
judges to take cases that differ greatly in circumstance and treat them exactly
the same.

Studies
have shown that mandatory minimums do nothing to end sentencing disparity, but
in some cases actually intensify the problem.

The
Idaho bill goes states that mandatory minimum sentences create the inability of
the court to tailor punishment to fit a particular defendant’s circumstances
and the specific circumstances of a case.

Judicial
discretion is a key element in diverting some offenders away from repeat
criminal activity. Mandatory sentences remove the flexibility judges have in
determining which measure of rehabilitation an offender would benefit most
from.

In
Connecticut Mandatory minimum sentences continue to cause a strain on our
already lean state fiscal resources.They overburden our correctional facilities with persons who would more
suitably be punished through means other than jail time.

Prosecutors,
some of the few people who are actually in favor of mandatory minimums, have
complained that if mandatory minimum sentencing laws were repealed, they would
lose a valuable bargaining chip to compel the accused to plea bargain rather
than risk taking the case to trial.

A major criticism of mandatory minimum sentencing practice focuses
on the fact that this type of sentencing shifts discretion from neutral
third-party judges to adversarial and biased prosecutors.

Supreme
Court Justice Stephen Breyer has stated that mandatory minimum sentences permit
the prosecutor, not the judge, to select the sentence by choosing to charge, or
not to charge, a violation of a statute that carries a mandatory prison term.

Prosecutors
can use their own discretion in choosing what they deem to be a fitting charge.
Under mandatory minimum sentencing, they alone possess the power to reduce the
sentence by lowering the charge.

The
main problem with this shifting of power from judges to prosecutors is that
while a judge’s sentencing actions take place under public scrutiny, a
prosecutor’s charging and plea-bargaining actions take place under secretive
behind-closed-doors circumstances, and so are unreviewable.

In this
light, the notion of checks and balances has been dealt a double whammy, first
by striping the judiciary of its role to specify sentences, then by passing
that role on to the prosecutors of the executive branch whose actions cannot be
evaluated for abuse.

Acknowledging
budget woes and inequities in sentencing state legislators and officials say
they have begun to re-evaluate the rationale behind mandatory minimum
sentences.

State
Sen. Martin Looney D-11, explained that, while the state’s population has
remained stable over the past two decades, the prison population has tripled.
The increase, due largely to the imposition of mandatory minimum sentencing,
has led to the state’s now astronomical spending on corrections.

“I
think there is the recognition that we need to build some greater flexibility
into the system,” Looney said. “That may be one of the few silver linings of
the budget cloud that we’re looking at now. Sometimes in difficult times,
people become a little bit more creative in looking at things that they might
not have looked at before.”

According
to the Connecticut Department of Corrections, the state spends almost $600
million a year on the incarceration of only slightly over 19,000 inmates.

Each
day the state spends a total of about $1.6 million to house inmates in its 18
correctional facilities. Currently it costs approximately $26,955 to house each
inmate per year.

The state
has asked the DOC to trim nearly $6 million from its budget; the department
could lose 164 employees due to the cuts.

Looney
suggests that a good way of lifting some of the state’s financial burden would
be to return greater discretion to judges when it comes to sentencing, allowing
judges to dictate sentences, which more appropriately suit a particular case.

“I
think we need to recognize that a judge is appointed for his or her judgment,
experience, understanding of the law, and how to apply the law,” Looney said.
“We have to trust that discretion and allow the judge to fashion a remedy that
is true justice.”

Looney
went on to say that under mandatory minimums judges become bureaucrats, rather
than judges because they are not functioning as an arbiter in the traditional
sense.

Police
Chief Robert Nolan says that mandatory minimums nullify the qualifications of
our judges and detract from the distinct and specific nature of each case.

“My
feeling from day one is that if we appoint judges I would hope that they are
appointed on the basis that they are qualified,” Nolan said. “Every case should
be a case unto itself. I don’t see a case where you can write a law that can
cover all situations.”

Nolan
stated that mitigating factors should always be taken into consideration during
sentencing and that judges must be allowed to consider them.

“Mandatory
minimum sentences take that away from the judge,” Nolan said. “It’s not
democratic because every single case is different.”

“We
have to focus on the particular crime, and the particular individual before
us,” Looney said. “Hamstringing judges by so many mandatory minimums undermines
their capacity to really do true justice.”

State
Rep. Peter Villano expressed a need to put an end to the practice of simply
“warehousing” offenders. He recognized a need to crack down on soft judges, but
acknowledged that situations arise where mandatory minimum sentences become a
tool of injustice.

State
Sen. George “Doc” Gunther R-21, stated that without mandatory minimums, judges
are free to sentence offenders however they see fit. He expressed a concern
that, unchecked judges might be too lenient in their sentencing.

Looney
stated that situations such as this should be avoided due to the judicial
review practices already in place.

State
Rep. Cameron Staples agreed that mandatory minimum sentences seem to be less of
a benefit and more of a hindrance.

“We
have to be smart,” said Staples. He went on to state that a “simple slogan”
approach toward sentencing is insufficient and defective. He pointed out that
while more money is going toward prisons less is being spent on education.

“It’s a
damning statistic,” Looney said.

Nolan
suggested that more money be spent on law enforcement rather than
incarceration.

“We
should be trying to be proactive to the problem rather than reactive,” Nolan
said.

In
Nolan’s opinion the state should explore alternate incarceration options as a
cost cutting approach. He added that during his career, he has seen many people
sent to prison who would be better suited for an alternative form of
rehabilitation.

According
to state agencies, the average cost for placing an inmate in an alternate
incarceration program is around $5,000 per year, $22,000 less than the annual
cost of housing an inmate in prison.

“We
need to provide more support for alternative forms of incarceration,” Looney
said. “We’ve made some strides in that direction in recent years, but we need
to make more.”

Staples
also expressed the need for greater use of alternatives to jail more
appropriate to the individual.

“We’re
not breaking the cycle,” Staples said.

Each
official pointed to potential savings and greater rehabilitative effects of
alternate forms of incarceration as reason enough to restore judges with more
leeway in sentencing.

“We
need to build as much flexibility into the system as we possibly can and allow
judges to really deal with the facts before them,” Looney said. “That’s one of
the purposes of a pre-sentence investigation before sentencing… to get a full
picture. If you don’t allow the judge to use that full picture in the
sentencing determination, you’re undermining the pre-sentence investigation.”

Prosecutors
have complained that if mandatory minimum sentencing laws were repealed they
would lose a valuable bargaining chip to compel the accused to plea bargain
rather than risk taking the case to trial.

“The
mandatory minimum sentences actually often become a bargaining tool,” Looney
said. “There have been cases of people actually pleading guilty, and having it
come out later on that they were in fact innocent. They recognized there was a
danger of conviction if they went to trial and they wind up accepting the plea
bargaining because they think it is a smaller risk than going to trial would
have been.”

Looney
called it “an unfortunate comment on what happens in the criminal justice
system sometimes.”

“The statue of Lady Justice has a blindfold on,
and there is a reason for it.” Nolan said. “It is supposed to be justice for
all. Prosecutors, judges, police officers, we all need to remember that.”

[1]In an
article by Aaron Ment, the chief court administrator of the state’s Judicial
Branch, it is suggested that alternate forms of incarceration would not only be
more successful in reforming inmates but would also lighten the state’s heavy
fiscal burden.

Jack
Cole, a retired narcotics officer with 26 years experience in the field, has
expressed the need for greater use of these prison alternatives. Cole called
current drug policy “institutionalized racism,” citing statistics to illustrate
his claim. He said that while 72% of drug users in the United States are white,
and only 13.5% are black, blacks account for 35% of all drug arrests.He said that the stats are equally
disproportionate in prosecutions, convictions, and severity of sentencing.

________________________________________

…But we Pray to god that he would Send forth his
Good Spirit into your harts and Remind you of your Duty and make you the
Instermints of Binding up the Brokenharted and of Proclaiming Liberty to the
captives and the opening of the Prison to them that are Bound…

-Petition of 1780 by
slaves for the abolition of slavery in Connecticut.

He has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed,
to bind up the brokenhearted to proclaim liberty to the captives and release to
the prisoners…

-Isaiah 61:1

_______________________________________

The prison system of our nation
was born of capitalistic intentions. In fact, if you look closely, it is more
than apparent that the prison system of today is nothing more than the
evolutionary spin-off of the prohibited practice of slavery. Much of our
criminal law, though marketed as policy designed to protect our nation’s
citizenry, is at its core both racist and capitalistic

Look at the statistics, and you’ll see that a
considerably disproportionate number of blacks are behind bars, you’ll see that
the structuring of our state’s drug sentencing laws are designed to penalize
blacks and other minorities more drastically than whites. The most glaring
examples of this are due largely to “war on drugs,” which concentrates greatly
on urban areas heavily populated by minority groups, despite the fact that much
drug use occurs predominantly in suburban white areas.

Look
past the smoke and mirrors, the political marketing and “tough on crime”
rhetoric being heaved by our nation’s political right and “left,” and one can
easily see there is currently
a committed effort, on the parts of many politicians and private industry
economists, to return the prison system to the dollar generating enterprise it
was in the 1800s. Unfortunately, those in favor of such restructuring pay little
mind to the atrocious conditions of the earlier system, and the human cost
necessary to yield such profits.

However, more than simply
attempting to turn the overcrowding crisis into a self-sustaining endeavor, and
more optimistically, a profit generating enterprise, in some lights it actually
appears that there may be an active attempt by some to further foster the
endemic prison-overcrowding crisis in order to gain both public support for
such change as well as create a greater prison work-force.

○○○

An August 2001 article from the
National Center for Policy Analysis’ titled “Prisoners Spell Dollars for
Communities” cites some interesting ways in which some communities have been
able to capitalize on the recent prison construction boom:

Most federal formula-grant
programs…are based at least partially on census numbers—and prisoners are
counted just like everyone else. Some states…also use census statistics to
parcel out state tax revenues and other funds. Never mind the fact that the incarcerated
get little benefit from the roads, parks and services the grants pay for.[1]

The article goes on to explain
how some communities have used prison populations to boost their total
population numbers to better qualify for grants, in some small communities the
addition of prison populations more than doubled their total population counts.
The article cites other “benefits” created by building prisons in some
communities:

Also prisoners have little or no
income, they depress per capita wages. This makes prison-hosting towns eligible
for additional cash from federal and state anti-poverty programs…Heavily
minority inner cities lose government funds when their residents are
transferred to rural communities and locked up. Furthermore, inmates are counted
for legislative apportionment and redistricting—even though they can’t vote. So
in states such as New York, the prison boom has helped to shift political
muscle from minority-dominated inner cities to rural areas dominated by whites.1

Taking facts such as this into
consideration, it becomes clear that if the corrections-industrial complex
could effectively formulate a self-sufficient prison system and foster
pre-existent racist trends in law enforcement, the benefits for politicians and
the country’s economic elite continue to compound themselves. A 1999
Perspective magazine articles addresses this prospect:

Prison Labor is inherently prone
to political corruption. On the most basic level, it produces a profit
incentive for politicians to build prisons, increase arrests, and extend
sentences. Riding the “tough on crime” attitude in America and a public demand
to cut prisoner benefits and programs, companies that utilize prison labor are
fueling the prison boom in the United States. This new aspect of the prison-industrial
complex show itself in many examples: questionable campaign contributions,
political favors, and the movement of individuals back and forth from political
posts to managerial posts in a prison industry.[2]

○○○

Look at the promotional pamphlets
distributed at the gates of Old Newgate Prison State Park and you’ll see that
the myths of three hundred years ago still live to this day:

Enter…into the world of convicted
horse thieves, counterfeiters, and murderers…. At night prisoners were confined
underground in an abandoned copper mine. During the day they labored within
these stone walls to earn their keep.[3]

An older Promotional Pamphlet
from the 1980s is even further laden with evident untruths:

Prisoners were kept in the mine
at night, and in total darkness. Yet, some of the inmates preferred this to the
cells above ground as it enabled them to move about more freely and to talk to
other prisoners…[4]

The true story of Newgate Prison
is a grim account of the capitalistic motivations behind the inception of
America’s modern Prison System, which paved the way for programs involving
prison labor, including so-called “prisoner leasing” for centuries to come.

The Newgate mines (originally
called Simsbury copper mine) were first mined in 1707, and were initially owned
by private landowners, including a governor of Massachusetts. But soon the
private enterprise proved too costly to continue.5 Soon the mines came into the ownership of
the Colony of Connecticut.

The colony of Connecticut first
used Newgate as a prison in December of 1773, and in October of 1776, Newgate
became the first state prison in the newly established United States of
America. Prior to the use of Newgate, prison sentences as punishment were
virtually non-existent in the New World and Europe.

Prison was where the accused
awaited trial. Generally, punishments were administered in the form of corporal
or capital punishment, public humiliation, or the imposing of a monetary fine.
Floggings, disfigurement, branding, were all accepted forms of physical
punishment. Public humiliation was achieved by utilizing the stocks or pillory.[5] However,
someone must have realized that a working prisoner is worth more than a dead or
wounded one.

Well before Newgate’s
inauguration as a prison, the mining enterprise had proved unprofitable.
Connecticut, having a relatively small number of slaves, found it difficult to
find employees to mine for the local smiths. A Connecticut legislative
committee suggested that sentenced criminals be sent to the mines, instead of
imposing traditional forms of punishment. In 1773, the first inmate descended
into the mine.[6]

[Newgate] marks a radical
departure in punishment. In many respects it foreshadows what is to
come…Newgate houses both violent and non-violent offenders, and the only goal
of punishment is retribution…there are no cells; men women and children are all
thrown together… The prison does not generate enough money through
copper-mining and tries other moneymaking ventures…Nothing works…Eventually, it
becomes too expensive to maintain and is replaced by a new institution in
Wethersfield.[7]

Eventually, it seems, even with
the newly created free labor force, Newgate lacked the ability to create
profits. The legislature’s experiment had backfired, but by now the justice
systems of both the state and country had come to regard lengthy prison
sentences as the preferred form of punishment.

The opening of the Wethersfield
State Prison in September of 1827 marked another landmark in the evolution of
Connecticut’s prison system. Modeled after the newly designed “Auburn System”
of the then considered state-of-the-art Auburn prison in New York State,
Wethersfield represented a departure from the slapdash organization of Newgate.

The Auburn System was itself a deviation
from the so-called Pennsylvania System, which was formulated around the belief
that Solitary Confinement was the only effective form of rehabilitation, as it
forced inmates to “repent their sins and consider their deviant acts.”2 Under this system, inmates labored alone in
their cells, however this type of prison industry soon proved exceptionally
unprofitable. A similar experiment performed at Auburn prison in New York
State, proved exceptionally disastrous and was deemed an unequivocal failure as
many of the inmates became insane from their confinement.

The system, for which Auburn
eventually became known, moved away from solitary confinement. However, though
the inmates ate and worked together, they were not allowed to ever look at or
speak with one another. If they broke the rules they were physically punished.2 The “military-like model” was instituted not
only to “keep prisoners in-line” but also to provide for more profitable and
efficient prison-industry.

This system, the foundation for
Connecticut’s Wethersfield Prison, proved less expensive than the Pennsylvania
system, and state’s began to see greater profits being made from their prison
enterprises; however, most prison industries still did not make enough money to
cover the expenses of running the prison as a whole.

The mid to late 1800s marked
another dramatic change in the way prisons were run. This period provides the
most visible examples of states capitalizing on prison-labor, as well as the
most blatant role of racism in the history of the prison-industrial complex
thus far.

Following
the civil war, the South found itself in dire need to replace the former
workforce of newly emancipated slaves. No longer able to legally steal/breed a
captive labor force, Southerners needed to come up with new ways of supplying
themselves with cheap labor. Up until then, states had been unable to
successfully utilize prison-labor making the prison system self sufficient, let
alone achieving their ultimate goals of transforming the prison system into a profit
generating enterprise. The administrative costs had continually eclipsed the
money made from prison-industries.

But at this point, the prison
system and private industry began to coordinate their efforts, creating the
first profitable prison-industries in history. The practice became know as
“prison leasing.”

Article XIII, Section 1 of the
constitution of the United States asserts that “Neither slavery not involuntary
servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been
duly convicted, shall exist within the United States…” There is the loophole.
Contrary to popular belief, slavery is still legal in the United States of
America; there are now simply conditions.

In a November 1995 article
written by Pete Dupont, former governor of Delaware (a state which hosted
public whippings as a form of legal punishment up until the 1950s), and then
Policy Chairman for the National Center for Policy Analysis, the author laments
the good old days of a profit yielding prison system.

It was not always this way. In
the last century, prisons earned a major part of their daily cost by leasing
convict labor to private employers. In 1885, three-fourths of prison inmates
were involved in productive labor, the majority working for private employers under
contract and leasing arrangements.[8]

But Dupont gives little insight
as to the specifics of the prison-leasing movement of the 1800s. This practice,
which is explored more in Section III of this essay, was little more than a
circumnavigation of the banning of slavery by the emancipation proclamation.

In prison leasing, states gave up
total control of its inmate population to the highest bidder. This practice was
especially popular in the southern areas of this country where former slave
owners now had no way running their businesses with the luxury of a cheap labor
force. After the institution of prison leasing, states had nothing to lose by
committing another prisoner to incarceration, on the contrary it had everything
to gain. More prisoners meant more profits, and since prisons were then just as
racially imbalanced as they are today, one more prisoner for the most part
meant one less free Negro.

Unfortunately, the crime of which
many of these neo-slaves of the 1800s had been convicted of was simply being
black. Many convictions were based upon “crimes” as dubious as “vagrancy.” This
racist trend continues in many ways today with a racially biased law
enforcement community, and laws unfairly weighed against minorities.

But the
halcyon days of comfortable prison profiteering eventually came to and end
during the great depression. Due to pressures from labor union““s and competing
businesses, Congress implements laws, which made it more difficult for states
and private industries to profit from prison labor. For the following forty
years, prisoners would labor for government agencies and non-profits
exclusively (See section II. History). However, by the 1980s most of these laws
had been rescinded and the country began to move back toward the “slaves of the
state” ideologies of the 1880s.[9]

Today,
proponents of prison labor include business leaders and corrections
administrators. The latter is no surprise when folks like Pete Dupont state
that legislation should “Let prisons ‘profit’ from accepting these contracts.
Provide monetary incentives to prisons and their wardens for leading their
institutions to self-sufficiency.”1 As
for the business leaders, there is little doubt as to what their motivations
are.

By
implementing prison labor, private businesses profit in a number of ways. The
voluminous NCPA report, “Factories Behind Bars,” explains the many benefits for
private industries that utilize prison labor. The study explains that privately
run prison industries boast greater productivity levels than those run by the
state.

The
study shows how states can profit from privately run prison labor. The study
explains that with an average wage of $5.00 an hour, each prisoner can generate
an income of about $10,000 per year, most of which will go back to the state.[10]

The
study also mentions “polls show that a majority of business leaders, who might
be expected to object to prison industries as unfair competition, actually
favor such programs.” Yet there is no explanation offered as to why they are in
favor of the programs. Here are some probable reasons why they are:

Prison labor is not protected by federal
safety and health standards, nor is it covered by National Labor Relations
policies.

Private industries are spared the expenses of
health, unemployment, and workers compensation benefits, and they are free
to hire and fire inmate employees at will, with none of the messy red
tape.

But,
for the most part, prison labor does not usually compete with our domestic
industries; rather prison labor is usually composed of the work most companies
already complete in other nations. Principally, prison labor competes with
third-world sweatshops (See APPENDIX A).

Prison
researchers have stated that most inmates will be hard pressed to find work on
the “outside” in the same areas in which they had worked while in prison.

“A
garment sewer in prison has little to look forward to in the garment industry
outside the walls, beside low wage and exploitation; never mind that most
garment shops are located overseas.”[11]

The
Perspectives Magazine article agrees: “…while prison labor mimics working
conditions in the developing world and can compete with overseas production,
the fields in which the inmates are gaining experience may not hold jobs for
them on the American market once they leave.”2

It is
statements like these that, if true, effectively take the wind out of any
claims of rehabilitative benefit such working environments will bequeath an
ex-prisoner (file “rehabilitation” along with “tough on crime” under “sounds
good”).

Another
benefit companies stand to gain by moving operations out of the developing
world and into American prisons is that they will then qualify to place the
desirable “Made in U.S.A.” label on their products. As one corporate bigwig
mentioned, “we’re employing Americans, they just happen to be incarcerated.”8

In
fact, some former New Jersey inmates revealed that their duties while working
in a prison shop included removing Honduran tags in garments and replacing them
with ones that read “Made in USA.”8

Though
promising to private industry, the NCPA study demonstrates some of the problems
private businesses might encounter while utilizing prison labor:

One of
the difficulties of creating jobs for prisoners is that many of them are
illiterate or semiliterate, or have low IQs, but champions of inmate labor are
confident such jobs could be created. The federal system has the best prospects
for high rates of payback because many of the prisoners are there for crimes
typically committed by more intelligent criminals like counterfeiting,
kidnapping and drug smuggling.5

There is
no mention in the study of educating these illiterate prisoners, for example,
teaching them to read, which may be a necessary aspect of true rehabilitation.
I think the reference to “more intelligent criminals” speaks for itself.

The
NCPA study also explains that “Prisoners Overwhelmingly Prefer Work to the
Tedium of Prison Life.” This statement brings up an interesting point. It is
the policy of the Connecticut DOC that any inmate who is offered a job in the
prison must accept the job or otherwise be confined to a segregation unit, i.e.
solitary confinement. As one article put it “Boredom is a powerful motivator in
prison.”7 A possible hypothesis would be
that prison jobs do not simply offer a break from the tedium of “prison life”
(see 23 hour lockdown in closet sized cells), but rather the tedious nature of
life in prison is designed to serve as motivation to get prisoners to work.
Looked at from this perspective, the policy of confinement to cells becomes
little more than a cunningly subtle psychological whip, as motivating as any
physical lashing.

APPENDIX
A:

SELECTED
EXAMPLES OF

PRIVATE INDUSTRY
& PRISON LABOR
___________________________

oIn 1998, MicroJet paid convict machinists only $7
per hour, as compared with the $30 per hour they would have had to have paid
union machinists. Also, MicroJet received a 56,000 square foot building rent
free with Washington State footing the maintenance fees.[12]

oLockhart Technologies, Inc. (manufacturer of
circuit boards for IBM, Compaq, and Dell) closed its Austin, Texas plant and
moved operations to a Texas prison run by Private Prison giant Wackenhut Corp.
without consulting with organized labor. Joe Gunn, president of Texas AFL-CIO
called the move “absolute indentured slavery. [Wackenhut] puts people to work under
conditions we criticize China for.” But Lockhart defended itself by stating
that there was no union in the county in which the prison was located. 9

oEscrod Industries moved to South Carolina only
after it dropped its plans to operate out of Mexico. The reason for the change
was that Mexican labor could not compete in cost with American prison labor.
South Carolina had further sweetened the deal by granting the company a
$250,000 “equipment subsidy” and offering industrial space at below market
rates.2

oOregon officials urged Nike (a company notorious
for its use of sweatshop labor) to relocate its Indonesia operations into
Oregon Prisons, stating, “We can offer competitive prison labor.”8

oJostens, Inc. a company that manufactures
graduation gowns, employed female inmates to perform duties liked to the
production work usually carried out in third-world countries. One company
executive was quoted as saying, “Keep it simple- put the least complex sewing
jobs you have inside the prison…”2

oNew Jersey inmates revealed that their duties
while working in a prison shop included removing Honduran tags in garments and
replacing them with ones that read “Made in USA.”8